News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

The real culprits are the parents and adults that were not properly superviseing the kids climbing. dad has some serious sole searching to do now and the petzle lawsuit is perhaps a way of dealing with that.....

In ice skating, a competitor injure and other to be able to go to the Olympic few years ago. I don't think that we are, climber, outside the law. We are people living in a society and we most live with those rules.

I think that the root of the discussion is between what is an acceptable risk and the mens rea of an action.

mens rea is an intention that was not fair. Saying that a route is 5.6, as it is a sandbag in reality, it is to bring some one to place themselves in a dangerous situation just for fun. I don't think that it is fair and a criminal mind can be evident there.

acceptable risk is more to have a real knowledge of the danger. If you said to someone that it is a 5.6 sandbag...and he decide to climb the route any way... it is an acceptable risk.

For me, someone saying that climbing is safe to sold courses or have client, who say that sport and trad is the same, who ridiculise other people when they try to talk about safety to bring a population of climber to have fun without learning the difference between sport and trad... for me those guy could be criminal. It is not a difference of opinion, like using an avy post instead of your knowledge to climb mt Washington in snowstorm, but you gave to the people an idea that they are can play any where when they buy the good tool.

In the case of the accident, the use of material is for me part of the risk of climbing. Don't have a superficial knowledge of it... a deep understanding. At twelve, the kid didn't have the capacity to understand or reed the instruction on a label and his parent and monitor are the only person with that authority. So, if they didn't watch there kid, it is like when you leave a baby in a car all door close.

For the company, I don't think that a mens rea can be prove. I don't see a company who will say: My instruction will be so complicated that nobody will be able to understand it. In respect with what I said above, I don't think that the accident is a good publicity for the company and that he try to induce the climber to do a mistake....like it is when you said that clipping a bolt is the same as relying on three rp's.

... At twelve, the kid didn't have the capacity to understand or reed the instruction on a label and his parent and monitor are the only person with that authority. So, if they didn't watch there kid, it is like when you leave a baby in a car all door close.

... At twelve, the kid didn't have the capacity to understand or reed the instruction on a label and his parent and monitor are the only person with that authority. So, if they didn't watch there kid, it is like when you leave a baby in a car all door close.

I think that this distills it down to what he meant to say

It is more the difference between some one telling:

A- this route is just 5.6 and you are going to enjoy itB- this route is a 5.6 sandbag, be careful.

the first one "A" is closer to criminal negligence: Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. Saying that a route can be 5.6 and knowing that it is a sand bag is dangerous. (N.B. a route can be 5.6 and a low technique climber will rate it higher is not in the same category)

Knowing the definition of criminal negligence is very helpful to understand the situation. There is a way to climb safe with a lot of knowledge on safety. In that case, it is difficult to make the distinction between recklessness and a bad mistake. In the later case, the use of a new pieces of equipment most have been done under parent supervision in my opinion (doesn't means that a parent who bring their child trad climbing are reckless)

I think it is OK to sandbag technical difficulty by a bit w/o being called criminal. Heck it is a little fun, even on the receiving end of such a sandbag. But to sandbag the availability of gear (PG13 -> G, for instance) or which pieces is needed to protect a route is no laughing matter. I think this is the point LL was trying to make.

Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

I think it is OK to sandbag technical difficulty by a bit w/o being called criminal.

It is more inducing some one in mistake by not telling him that the route is a sandbag. I know many places, Yosemite for examples, where the climber rate any thing which is not 5.8 as a 5.9. Some climber was excellent 5.11, but the grade doesn't exist. So, they grade with the rules at those days. It is not criminal.

But if someone arrive and want to gave hard time to a climber, just to make him piss in his pan, without any consideration if the dude will do any thing, even risking his life, to prove that he can climb a 5.6.... I think that it is not fair.

The phrase A and B are together, to compare and see that difference. that every body understand for sure. There is other example?

I'm going to assume the idea of sandbagging as 'criminal' is LL running into in the language thing again. I've been sandbagged numerous times by friends and guidebooks--I've even cleverly managed to sandbag myself--and this has a couple of times resulted in dangerous situations. In every instance it was my fault. Last I checked when I stepped off the belay I had the rope, the rack, and the initiative, the responsibility was completely mine. If you depend upon hearsay rather than your own judgement then you get what you deserve.

I'm going to assume the idea of sandbagging as 'criminal' is LL running into in the language thing again. I've been sandbagged numerous times by friends and guidebooks

I think so too about the language thing. Travel and climb enough and you are going to get sandbagged one time or another. It is all part of the learning curve and experience.

Simply put, whenever someone willfully puts someone else's life in danger by whatever means it is not a good thing. To judge whether there is criminal intent, I believe the situation needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis, and we can't be making sweeping statements here.

Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Simply put, whenever someone willfully puts someone else's life in danger by whatever means it is not a good thing.

Let bring a difference aspect of All question.

As a climber, you want to climb. Deeply climb every thing you see. You are in front of a piece of rock, not a route that some one rate in a way or an other. You have a challenge and you want to do it. Between reckless comportment or bozo comportment, known for being kind of an idiot, and safe climbing, there is a big difference. If you go to court, and had to draw a line...where are you going to make it. It is what I call an acceptable risk. In an acceptable risk, you most have a solution to get out of a problem: Mountaineering, Freedom of the hill was, in the gold time, fifth edition and before, a bible of all solution to get out of a problem. Solution or good or not, it was in the book. As you came back from climbing, you take the book and understand some subtlety of climbing. You understand that climbing a crack in a layback can be a sandbag, but climbing it with hand jamming is 5.6.Ounce you have a solution, there is the counterpart, where someone don't know the solution. When some one have an accident, you learn the limit of your technique. Accident of north America was wrote before to understand when a climber was climbing over his limit. When the risk is too high, when it is not an acceptable risk. Climbing alone in a snowstorm on pinnacle the first year of ice climbing is not an acceptable risk. Climbing with an experience climber could be acceptable.

On the other side of the climber, there is the company who don't want to have law suite. They want to make money, that climbing be popular, and, as placing pro is dangerous...put a bolt. They want to place bolt every where, not only where a fall can cause injury over your acceptable risk. You don't have to learn safety, but follow a set of rules like the avy post to know when to climb or not. I climbed with a very good kid and he told me that he want to have fun and lead pitches...he pull me out of stance two or three times by pulling too much on the rope has he belay. Not knowing how to belay and wanting to take the sharp end of the rope won't be, by any consideration, an acceptable risk. If similar climber bring there friend without knowing what is an acceptable risk, I think that it is a criminal negligence.

N.B. I know some good climber who don't like to climb seven pitch in 5.7 to have one move of 5.12. They prefer to bolt small cliff with many move of 5.10, 5.12 and play in it. A new generation follow there path and learn to play in sport route without learning what is an acceptable risk. A good sport climber by choice and a spotra climber is not the same.

Mountaineering, Freedom of the hill was, in the gold time, fifth edition and before, a bible of all solution to get out of a problem. ..........A good sport climber by choice and a spotra climber is not the same.

Logged

"I really don't know who act like if he have the true." -Champoing

DLottmann

Avy Report is just one tool to help you make a good decision whether to climb or not, but it doesn’t “Tell you when to climb not”. Stop bashing a solid piece of info to help you make a better decision.